Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 24 (225 MHz)






Embarcadero 3, Us 3, Wiener 2, Linda Chapman 2, The City 2, Fong 2, David Allen 2, San Francisco 2, Terraville 1, Liz Waddy 1, Jennifer 1, Peter Albert 1, Calvin Welch 1, Cohen 1, Jeffrey Leebwitz 1, Bethany 1, Herman 1, Steve 1, Wu 1, Aaron Miller 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    February 28, 2013
    12:30 - 1:00pm PST  

the existing building and specify new building not exceed that height. on tuesday the full board of supervisors approved on reading supervisor wiener's motion for the car ordinance and they recommended approval with modifications. the supervisor agreed with the modifications and scheduled a meeting with our staff and mta to talk about possible enforcement of parking regulations in the code by the sfmta instead of the planning department. and they made two appointments this week so there are a few items, just 2 i would
like to tell you about for new introductions at the board this week. the first is a police code amendment so this will not be brought before this commission unless requested by the commission or the commission president. this is sponsored by supervisor wiener and clarify permits and procedures as well as expand and enforcement procedures with the entertainment commission place of permits. it would include limitations to the live permit and such as allowing dj's and permit to include out door spaces so this item will not be scheduled unless requested. the second item will be before you in 90 days because it's an amendment to the planning code and sponsored by supervisor cohen and application meetings for certain projects in the pdr1 buffer district and with that
that concludes my report for this week unless there are questions. >> thank you. commissioner wu. >>i wanted to ask more about western soma. you said one of the issues that the board was concerned with the tiers, the trade off between levels of affordability and impact fee. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so i think i just want to request if you end up preparing some materials if you could send those to us also. i assume it's a chart showing the trade off in the tiers. >> of course we can send that to the commission. >> and you said there is analysis of how it's been working so far in eastern neighborhoods. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places you -- >> the board of appeals and there were two items and the first one is on oakdale avenue.
they upheld the permit and they sought to reduce the size of the building but there were concerns from the neighborhoods how they were doing the work and mitigations for air quality issues so there is appeal from the neighborhood on that. the board upheld the permit but they didn't have a condition to do a soil study. there was a rehearing request in the permit and the appellate noted some facts over a day over two after the hearing the project sponsor continued work, remove paint, probably lead paint without containment and additional demolition. a inspector was called out and they were barred from entry and they were intimidated and san francisco police department responded toed scene and this was reported to the board of appeals last week and they felt there were issued
and voted for the rehearing request and scheduled for april 10. another item at 26th and terraville and for a tenant improvement and not routed to planning. it was going from personal service use to professional service use. there was appeal on the permit as well as related mechanical and plumbing permits. each side had 28 minutes to appeal their case so it was quite a lengthy hearing that evening. this was in the new one that the board of supervisors had adopted and at the time it was before you we made a recommendation regarding the use categories because if you look at professional and business use in the table it says principally permitted but if you look at the street controls it's not considered active ground for use so it's
not allowed only with the conditional use authorization. we wanted to use more explicit. it was the recommendation of the department, of this commission, however the board of supervisors didn't accept that change so the table -- it's confusing where it looks like it's principally permitted but in reality it's a conditional use authorization so this was pointed out to the parties last week. when we became aware of this we requested that the board of appeals actually deny the permit because it needed the conditional use authorization if they relocated there. the board continued the item for them to provide additional item because they're arguing they're a financial service use given how they operate. they're a insurance company but they said they offer financial service so the board continued that and that's all i have to report. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, now you're under general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the
commission with respect to the non agenda items. you can address the commission with specific agenda items during that time. i have a speaker card. >> just a reminder this is general comment not on today's calendar. linda chapman. >> linda chapman. i wanted to tell you a little bit about what happened last week in our meeting. we had several people speaking on knob hill housing and tearing down the historic church. a number of people on the panel are people with a long organization with the church in one way or another. our young urban planning student was a student
at the head start there. it was referred to as the methodists and people working on this are methodists or alums. the person that gave the history of the church which he left me which i will read you a little bit of. calvin welch was coming from [inaudible] and steve taker stepped in and he explained how funding can be done for this project. tndc is unable to come forward because of the threats from the developer and they have to give safe harbor and they stepped in for them. and natasha gave a little history of the
church. there were the first protestant church west of the rockies and it memped with another church. i was there at the end of the closing of our church. our congregation memped with park presidio and we fought to keep our building to continue the legacy in the community through a nonprofit program although they knew they couldn't continue as a congregation. we wanted to use the building for the community and put forth proposals. in the end they were voted down and went to the annual conference to sell. this was considered -- there wasn't a time there wasn't a developer who wanted to buy it and financially capable we heard. i heard about bethany and from
reverend norman thong when i talked about this project and they actually had the ability to do it, but they were turned down, maybe by one individual up there. since there there were one or more that actually want to do this project and it's most unfortunate all of this also information is given out how they demand said it be sold for money and no developer was able and i will come and talk with you more another time. we will leave the photographs of the buildings that aren't demolished but those people are working -- >> thank you. next speaker please. general public comment. >> save the tree. jeffrey leebwitz. today was reported that legislation for the james
herman cruise terminal at piers 30-32 has been picked by the assembly member mr. tang. i wanted to bring that to your attention because as a san franciscan this alarms me. i think you will see it in comments about the story a direct assault on the waterfront on their authority and the act and the plan and i think we should be alarmed by this because that particular legislation was to preserve the waterfront and the environment. you have another item on the calendar. i will be back to comment on that but i think we should pay very close attention to this legislation and i think that san franciscans get in touched with the newly elected assemblyman and let him know
how delicate and important the bay is to us and the bay front. i wanted to bring that to your attention if you have not read that story. thank you. >> my name is jerry wolf. i apologize to the commissioners for this. i was here today -- which i will take a moment for, for the consent calendar of 975 bryant, orchard supply hardware -- >> we pulled it off -- >> how does that work? >> it will happen under the regular calendar which is the next -- >> within the hour and a half. >> so it will be heard today? i apologize for that. thank you. >> any other general public comment? okay. public comment is closed. next item please. >> commissioners that places you -- >> we're going to do -- with your permission there is an
architect for the piers 30-32 space that has to leave and i would like to hear item 12 in this order, four and seven. >> understood. >> thank you. >> commissioners in that case item 12. the event center and mixed use development at piers 30-32 and sea wall lot 330 informational item. >> good afternoon president fong and members of the commission. i am joy [inaudible] of planning staff. this is an information item on the mixed use and development at piers 30-32 and sea wall lot 330. there is not a hearing on the environmental review for the project. however that is under way. as the notice of preparation went out and we will come back this fall with the draftd eir so today we're going
to present the project. the presentation will go as follows. i will have jennifer max from work force development come up say a few words and david a allanba and what is important in terms of design and craig dikers will go over the project design and he is accompanied by nick raider from [inaudible], bill crocket and [inaudible] from a com and chris [inaudible] and david israel bar architects in case you have any questions. i have other planning staff members here, chris kern, liz waddy and diane osh mafrom port staff if you have questions as well as jessie [inaudible] and ellen warner from the golden state warriors if you have questions afterwards. i will start with jenn from the office
of work force development. >> good afternoon commissioners, president fong and the rest of the commissioners. thank you very much. i am very pleased to be here. i want the project manager for the piers 30-32 and sea wall lot 330 working with staff in order to develop this project and move it forward. we have been working closely with the planning department from the inception when this project was first announced in may and all fall we have been working collaboratively as you will hear on describe and transportation issues. today's presentation is a presentation that has been evolving, receiving feedback from various stakeholders, community groups, the advisory port group and staid lands. we
wanted to give you an opportunity now to understand some of the foundational ideas that have been presented for this multi-use arena and for the uses on sea wall lot 330 and receive feedback from you on some of the initial concepts. the intention of the project sponsors and the city is come back in late april with responses and another iteration of this design at that time. after taken into account the feedback we're receiving from the various stakeholders. at the same time as working on the design and program for this project we are looking closely at transportation. peter albert from the sfmta and aaron miller are leading up a city wide and a regional wide effort to do a waterfront transportation assessment that is looking at all of the development that is planned for and predicted along
the waterfront to pier 70 and north to green street and half mile inland and understanding what is the development that is proposed? what are the transportation infrastructure improvements that are already planned? what may need to be augmented and refined and developed in order to serve this area of the city as successfully as possible with all modes of transportation, not just ones controlled by the city, but looking our regional partners including water base transportation. that waterfront district transportation assessment we would like to come to you and actually do a presentation on where that process is as well. there is a lot of focus on the arena because it's geographically located in the center of the assessment but also because of the conversations that are
happening at the cac around this project so while it is not designed simply to address the impacts of the arena and other uses, we have been giving a lot of focus to that one element of the waterfront assessment. with they would like to turn this over to david allen to talk about the planning departments has engaged the warriors from the beginning in providing guidelines around the expectations and parameters around which planning department's expectation of design at this site. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks jenn. good afternoon commissioners. david allen member of staff. since the project was announced as jennifer said staff has been working with the project team as it has been articulated and i wanted to give you overview of
what the planning department and port staff have presented to the piers 30-32 cac and to the project designers as they are articulating the project. what you will see today are intended to be general urban design guidelines that we believe the project sponsors should strive to meet as the design it articulated and they're not intended to stand in or replace existing guidelines and controls. we are pleased they listened to our concerns and i think you will find most of them are incorporated in the designs you will see. the first thing for the city -- as we saw it this is a very important site in the city and the chance for the city to consider a use on this site is a rare opportunity and one that we need to get right, and so we know that the community, the city, the port, and other state interests will
have interest in what is going on there so we're working as a staff together as a team to explore uses for this site. the urban design cues that we began to articulate we think that the project sponsor should respond to these. first there should be a dialogue with the setting. if you know the site it's in a situated beautifully at the edge of the city and we feel that the whole composition needs be in this dialogue with the setting. at the same time it also needs to engage respond to and express the place where it sits in the city and the scale and the character of the adjacent neighborhoods and the city behind it. it should certainly address the grand scale of the embarcadero and even grander scale of the bay. another cue
is the site to the shoreline and fold and open to unveil intricacies as you go along the site and the embarcadero and the adjoining streets and the bay and the shoreline should always be apparent and capitalized on and always part of the dialogue of the place that is created. at the same time we believe that what is built over the bay on piers 30-32 should be dramatic and compelling and cutting edge contemporary design and i will talk more about that in just a minute and finally -- not finally, but one of the more important aspects given the location to the south of the bay bridge is the inner play with whatever is proposed on this site and sort of engaging of the dynamic dialogue that development will have -- indeed
have with the bay bridge and the engagement with the bay and the hills. while the site needs to hold its own and the scale and the hills beyond and needs that drama as well so with that as a back drop we also considered some of the most important basic moves that this project you have. as i said earlier we believe that the development certainly at least on piers 30-32 ought to have contemporary cutting edge design and we show the images on the screen not as suggestions to the describe team but the drama and design that other cities had in similar situations and we believe that the design ought to represent the best of our times and imaginations and aspirations of this time in the city. this will be a challenging design
problem. the design needs to be aware of the historic district which it is nestled and have a human scale and people scale and shouldn't be introverted but an extroverted development, open and welcoming to all. it is of course two sites. there is the sea wall lot on the west side of the embarcadero and the pier on the east and they need to be thought of a single unit with the embarcadero running through it, the two sides have different context that ought to be expressed in the design. on the land side with respect to the neighborhood and its context what is built should spring from the adjacent neighborhood acknowledging the grand scale of the embarcadero and the bay beyond and like all streets in san francisco on the land side should be of a human the scale. should have a strong visual interest and urban pedestrian
presence and the street front we believe should be lined with active uses. on the bay side what is built over the bay should be free to draw its form and drama from the location over the bay. the relative separation of the fabric of the bay and we believe the design ought to be the most creative and what is built there should be a welcoming transition from the crescendo of a multi-use facility to a human scaled active transparent embarcadero. we also believe that the development -- it's important that the development create unfailing welcoming place. the site should create drama through balance of the site, the buildings, and public accommodations and draws and welcomes people whether the facility is in use or not. that
there should be 24 hour activity as much as to develop. that the site in the open spaces should serve the needs of the immediate neighborhood and the city and the region and given the pier is visible from all sides and vantage points there should be few blank points and strong access to the water's edge and the sunny edge facing the basin and the pier should have direct access to the water and not slope down and step down and give people direct access to the bay. on the eastern edge the embarcadero the character should be one of openness and transparency and the pier and the public spaces and the bay beyond and finally in terms of the guidelines that we presented it should be unfailinglily public place that is accommodating folks that arrive
not just in cars but walking, biking and ferry access and to rely on the automobile as least as possible. it should minimize the traffic on the embarcadero and along the site and allow minimal access along the embarcadero. i will briefly summarize the port directions as well. drawing their inspiration or direction from the water land use plan showing some of the major goals for the land use plan in this part of the waterfront and activities to make it inviting and safe, improving the rincon neighborhoods and mission bay and south beach. taking advantage of downtown san francisco by providing attractions to the general
public while respecting the needs of the residents. establish high design standards in new development that give ride architectural identity for the shoreline and improvement that extend through the area and provide pedestrian connections between different portions of the downtown. i will close with a picture of the what are -- wharf. i will introduce craig [inaudible] who you will give an overview of the site today. >> thank you.
>> this one or this one? i guess it's this one. >> closer to -- >>i would like to use this. >> that's fine. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. thank you once again for giving me this chance to present our work to you. i'm here representing a very large group. some of them were mentioned earlier. a comour partners and architects and the full design plan. i will move quickly and be succinct about the work but first i want to start with what is driving us, the general direction about the project. how do we connect the cultural landscape of the city, the place where we live that changes daily with the natural environment that surrounds it? and i would say this is the primary concern that drives us and of course it's the concern of many of the people affected
by the project and everyone has a different opinion as to how this question can be answered. is there one answer? it's difficult to say, but there is one thing that we believe as we see the site today which is roughly decaying and challenging and problematic piece of infrastructure that sometimes it is used as a parking lot or fenced off doesn't represent the best world that the city offers to its bay so we hope to add to that a new cultural dynamic and complement to the city and the region and provides open space and access for the people that visit this place in a way that is more fundamental than currently exists on the site. i know many people will have a different viewpoint here and we have anger and as i look over
my shoulder there are people that love what we're doing and some don't and i can put my reputation on the dais we're and we're aware and we're working to be professional, open and as responsive as possible to a wide range of people because this projected as enormous impact and not only to the community but the city. the first thing we would like to talk about the is various characteristics of the pier site. it's a wide pier. it's not a finger pier as we are used to so it creates its own horizon and so large each edge has its own life. the southern edge which faces the sun which connected to the park and has a leisurely open quality to it that we can see people would enjoy relaxing on that portion of the site primarily because of the access to the sun and ir